aesthetics

[Bill Marsh <bmarsh54@zzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

Oh hell, I really didn't want to enter this fray, but you guys have
suckered me into it.

As someone with 2 MFAs (which I started in my mid-30s), these kinds of
discussions take me back to very vivid memories of art school.  There
were basically two kinds of artists there, those that worked with the
viewer (teacher) in mind first, and those that worked for themselves
first.  The former created elaborate verbiage and theoretical constructs
to defend their work and place it in an art historical context, and to
outline a conceptual basis for the work.  The latter were much more
close-mouthed about the whole thing, and endured extreme amounts of
criticism, from the profs and their fellow students, for preferring to
let the work stand for itself without much in the way of explanation,
beyond some low key words about what feelings they were trying to
express (which, as you know, are tough things to communicate, especially
since such feelings are usually from a level of the psyche that defies
easy rationalization).

The "academic" approach usually produced work that was somewhat dry,
over-intellectualized, though sometimes very elaborate, that lacked that
"spark" that could evoke a gut reaction in the viewer.  Indeed,
sometimes the work was so obviously a mental construct that it required
defending, or at least explanation, to stand on its own.  I saw some
things win high praise that I wouldn't have given a plug nickel for, and
some people got degrees based on thesis concepts that carried the weight
of a butterfly fart, and were as vacuous Madonna's music (sorry if I
offend anyone's idea of "good music").  That used to really get to me.

The "emotional" approach, for lack of a better word, rarely required
explanation, stood readily on its own merits, and so obviously touched
everyone that saw it as to require little if any conceptual
underpinning.  This circumstance made critique of this work a very
silent affair, which the profs, and students of the academic variety,
didn't like at all.  What is there to say about a piece that
unselfconsciously grabs you on a level beyond the need for defense?  It
was definitely the stronger work.

There came a point at which I realized the dynamic that was occurring in
front of me, and very nearly dropped out of the program. But I decided
to stick with it, twice even, because I saw that I could learn things
 from these people (a lot of technique), regardless of how they judged my
work, and regardless of the hoops I had to jump through.  I'm glad I
did, but I don't think I could do it again, knowing what I know now.

The distillation of all THIS verbiage is that one has to work from
inside oneself to produce something that is meaningful, to the maker and
the audience.  If you work with the viewer/critic/gallery owner in mind,
you're going to fail to communicate anything - to yourself or anyone
else.  My best stuff has been the result of confusion and unconscious
processes that defy categorization and easy explanation, especially to
me.  I've had more success from frustrating stones, some that I got
pissed off at and put in a corner for a week, a month, or a year, and
later came back to, than from stones that were completely planned and
worked out in advance down to the last detail.  Viewers see the
difference, and over time I have learned to feel the difference as I'm
working.  Like many have said here, a piece has to resonate within the
maker, or it's going to be a cold rock.  The maker has to let whatever
emotional process he/she uses control the greater part of the piece, or
it will be less successful.  It's like that line from the Grateful Dead,
"...while the music played the band...."  I know I'm doing my best work
when I'm NOT thinking about every move (or the gallery owner's
response), when it's flowing out of my hands like water off a cliff.

So many words, and it still doesn't sound right, which proves my point
in a way.

Bill Marsh